Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corporation v. Victorio Dela Cruz, et.

al (AGRARIAN REFORM; RA 6657)

Land on which no agricultural activity is being conducted is not subject to the coverage of either Presidential
Decree No. 27 RA no. 6657

The Dakila property used to be tenanted by Susana Surio and the others but the tenants freely and voluntarily
relinquished their tenancy rights in favor of Santiago through their respective sinumpaang pahayagin exchange for
some financial assistance and individual home lots titled and distributed in their names.

Holy Trinity purchased the remaining property of Dakila who then develop
the property by dumping filing materials on the topsoil, erected a perimeter fence and steel gate and later on
established its field office on the property reclassifying lots belonging to the Holy Trinity into residential lots.

WON the Dakila property agricultural land within the coverage of RA 6657or PD27?

No, Consequently, before land may be placed under the coverage of RA 6657, two requisites must be met, namely:
1) that the land must be devoted to agricultural activity; and 2) that the land must not be classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. For land to be covered under PD 27, it must be devoted to rice or
corn crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. Unfortunately, the Dakila
property did not meet these requirements.

###

DAVAO NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. SALIGA (LAWYER TUMAKAS)

Two parcels of land situated in Davao City. Respondents Executed 5-year lease contract with former owner Atty.
Mendiola. Saliga claimed that the instrument was actually a device Mendiola used to evade the land reform law.
Saligas claimed ownership based on PD No. 27 (The Land Reform Program of the Government) covering agricultural
lands

Petitioner purchased the property; however, prior to the sale, the Davao City Office of the Zoning Administrator
confirmed that the property was not classified as agricultural. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator ruled that
property has been reclassified from agri to non-agi when CARL took effect. Not under coverage of CARL.

The CA was also convinced that the property was still agricultural and was, therefore, covered by R.A. No. 6657.
While the CA conceded that the conversion of the use of lands that had been reclassified as residential, commercial
or industrial, prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657, no longer requires the DARs approval.

Issue:

Whether the property had been reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988 so as
to remove it from the coverage of CARL?

YES. Local government units have the power to reclassify lands from agricultural to nonagricultural uses. DAR
approval is not required. City Council of Davao City has the authority to adopt zoning resolutions and ordinances.
Under Section 3 of R.A. No. 226430 (the then governing Local Government Code), municipal and/or city officials are
specifically empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the
National Planning Commission." This power of the local government units to reclassify or convert lands to non-
agricultural uses is not subject to the approval of the DAR. (Pasong Bayabas Farmers Asso., Inc. v. Court of Appeals)
In Junio v. Secretary Garilao, SC clarified, once and for all, that "with respect to areas classified and identified as
zonal areas not for agricultural uses, the DARs clearance is no longer necessary for conversion.
###

Heirs of Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal (SUBDIVISION)

Augusto Salas, Jr. is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land consisting of 148 hectares located in, Lipa
City, Batangas. In May 1987, Salas entered into an Owner-Contractor Agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation
for the development, subdivision and sale of the property. The HLURB allowed Salas and Laperal Realty to develop
the property and subdivide it into a farmlot subdivision consisting of 80 saleable lots. The property was further
subdivided into smaller lots for which new TCTs were issued in the name of Salas.

Despite this, the HLURB included portions of the lots under its Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Petitioners protested with DAR and applied for exemption. One of the petitions is the instant case.

ISSUES:

Whether or not petitioners have a right to the land, thus necessitating a TRO.

HELD:

Petitioners have shown a prima facie right to the exemption that they claim. Former DAR Secretary Pagdanganan
granted petitioners application for exemption upon finding that the subject lots had already been converted to
non-agricultural even prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657,due to the propertys reclassification into farm
lot subdivision through the Land Use and Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City.

###

Department of Agrarian Reform, v Sutton (POULTRY)

Respondents herein inherited a land which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. Pursuant to
the then existing agrarian reform program of the government, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS)
their landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law. a new agrarian law, Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect. It included
in its coverage farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine. Thereafter, in an en banc decision in the case of
Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR this Court ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in
the definition of agricultural land. Hence, we declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL insofar as
they included livestock farms in the coverage of agrarian reform. Thus, respondents filed with petitioner DAR a
formal request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus
exempted from the coverage of the CARL.

ISSUE: Whether or not DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 which prescribes a maximum retention for
owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional?

HELD: The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and
do not fall within the definition of agriculture or agricultural activity. The raising of livestock, swine and
poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural activity. The assailed A.O. of
petitioner DAR was properly stricken down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverage of agrarian reform
beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution

###

Islanders CARP-Farmers Beneficiaries v. LADECO

###

DEL MONTE v JESUS SANGUNAY (AGRARIAN DISPUTE CONVERT SQM TO HA ILLEGAL ENTRY)

A 2M sq. m. landholding was awarded to petitioner DEARBC, an agrarian cooperative and beneficiary under the
CARP. Respondent Sangunay illegally entered a portion of its property called Field 34 and utilized a portion of 1.5
hectares of such property wherein he planted corn, built a house and resided in such from 1986 to present.
Respondent Labunos also illegally entered same portion and tilled 8 hectares wherein he planted trees, gmelina,
mahogany andother crops as a source of his livelihood. Both respondents failed to return the lands despite demand
and such illegal occupation resulted in deprivation of use of land and damages.

The Adjudicator ruled in favor of DEARBC on the ground that respondents failed to prove ownership. Sangunays
and Labunos position:

i. Land was an accrual deposit he inherited from his father in which he had been in open,
public, adverse, actual, physical and continuous possession of land as an owner.
ii. He cultivated such land with the knowledge of DEARBC. He presented Tax Declaration
and Real Property Historical Ownership issued by Municipal Assessor, showing that he
declared property for taxation even before DEARBC acquired it.
iii. He was a qualified farmer-beneficiary entitling him to security and tenure under CARP

Issue: W/N DARAB has jurisdiction over the case of DEARBC

Held: No! DARAB does not have jurisdiction. Under Sec. 50 of RA 6657, DARAB is vested with primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform maters and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matter involving
implementation of CARP. Hence, at first instance, only DARAB can determine and adjudicate agrarian disputes.
According to RA 6657, agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning
farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to
arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of
lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to
farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

###

People v. Vanzuela, G.R. No. 178266, July 21, 2008

###
ALANGILAN REALTY & DVT CORP vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (RESERVE RESIDENTIAL)

Petitioner is the owner/developer of a 17.4892-hectare land in Batangas City (Alangilan landholding). petitioner
filed an Application Exemption from CARP Coverage of the Alangilan landholding. The Sangguniang Bayan of
Batangas City classified the subject landholding as reserved for residential under a zoning ordinance, which was
approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission. It further alleged that, the Sangguniang Panglungsod
of Batangas City approved the City Zoning Map and Batangas Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Ordinance,
reclassifying the landholding as residential. Petitioner thus claimed exemption of its landholding from the coverage
of the CARP. The DAR Secretary noted that the Alangilan landholding remained agricultural, reserved for
residential. It was classified as residential only under Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Clearly, the subject landholding
was still agricultural at the time of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657. The qualifying phrase reserved for
residential means that the property is still classified as agricultural, and is covered by the CARP. On appeal, the
Office of the President (OP) affirmed the decision of the DAR Secretary. The CA noted the report of MARO,
Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO), and Regional Agrarian Reform Office (RARO) that the Alangilan
landholding was devoted to agricultural activities prior to the effectivity of the CARP on June 15, 1988 and even
thereafter. Hence, this appeal by petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners Alangilan landholding is subject to the coverage of CARP, notwithstanding that
the property has been converted to non-agricultural uses by the zoning ordinance of the city of Batangas prior to
the law.

HELD: As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land
use. It does not denote that the property has already been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved
for residential is not a land classification category. Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the
subject landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to
pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the landholding as residential

###
Heirs of Luna vs. Afable (POLICE POWER OF LGU)

The heirs of Luis A. Luna and Remegio A. Luna, and Luz Luna-Santos (Heirs) are co-owners of a parcel of land
located in Oriental Mindoro which was subjected to compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). Respondents Ruben Afable, identified by the DAR as qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
The heirs sought the cancellation award before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Their petition was anchored
mainly on the reclassification of the land in question into a light intensity industrial thereby excluding the same
from the coverage of the agrarian law. DARAB ruled in favor of the heirs.

Afable et al. appealed to the DARAB Central Office and the latter ruled in their favour. He then appealed the Office
of the Presidents decision to the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the appeal. Hence, the heirs appealed to the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Municipal Ordinance No. 21 validly classified the parcel of land from agricultural to non-
agricultural, and therefore, exempt from CARP?

HELD: The land is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.

Local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands. Sec. 345 of RA No. 2264
(The Local Autonomy Act of 1959) specifically empowers municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and
subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission. By virtue of a zoning
ordinance, the local legislature may arrange, prescribe, define, and apportion the land within its political
jurisdiction into specific uses based not only on the present, but also on the future projection of needs.

The regulation by local legislatures of land use in their respective territorial jurisdiction through zoning and
reclassification is an exercise of police power. The power to establish zones for industrial, commercial and
residential uses is derived from the police power itself and is exercised for the protection and benefit of the
residents of a locality.

###
Heirs of Pacifico Gonzales vs. Juanito De Leon, et al. (18% SLOPE)
Subject of the controversy is a parcel of land located at Cabuyao, Laguna covered by four (4) separate Transfer
Certificates of Title with a total combined area of 49.8 hectares, registered under the name of Pacifico Gonzales

The Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) issued Inspection Report declaring the subject
properties exempt from CARP coverage on the following grounds:

The land is more than 18% in slope;

 It is not irrigated;
70% of the land is not cultivated;
It is not planted to rice and corn;
That other appropriate government agencies had already been consulted, their approval sought and was
granted.

The Respondents alleged the existence of a tenancy relationship and their status as bonafide tenants and farmer-
beneficiaries. However, the MTC held that the evidence presented by the respondents failed to prove the essential
requisites of tenancy relationship between plaintiff and respondents.

WON the subject properties are agricultural lands?

Requisites of agricultural. Agricultural activity. Qualified beneficiaries. There are two conditions that must concur
in order for land to be considered as not agricultural:1) the land has been classified in town plans and zoning
ordinances as residential, commercial or industrial; and 2) the town plan and zoning ordinance embodying the land
classification has been approved by the HLURB or its predecessor agency